Roman Military Deployment in North Author(s): David J. Breeze and Brian Dobson Source: Britannia, Vol. 16 (1985), pp. 1-19 Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/526389 Accessed: 02/06/2009 19:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Britannia.

http://www.jstor.org Roman Military Deployment in North England*

By DAVID J. BREEZE and BRIAN DOBSON

rN I963 MichaelJarrett published a short paper on 'The MilitaryOccupation of Roman Wales.'l It discussedthe documentaryevidence relating to the Roman conquest of the LWelshtribes and the diSeringattitudes of these tribesto Rome, but its main importance lay in the six distributionmaps illustrating the forts occupiedin A.D. 80, I00, I 30, I 50, 220 and 330. SubsequentlyDr J. L. Davies has publisheda seriesof nine maps coveringthe first and secondcenturies.2 Two papershave recentlyextended the same treatmentto Scotland.3The northof Englandhas neverbeen affordedthe samediscussion. The most detaileddistnbution maps publishedto date are the five which appearin ProfessorFrere's Britannia.4 However, there have been maps and discussions of certain areas such as north-westEngland,s or particularperiods.6 It seems appropriatethat a portrayalof the changingface of military deploymentin north Englandover nearly350 years should appearin a volume dedicatedto JohnGillam, who has done so muchto illuminatethe historyof the area,not least throughhis work on that basic dating material,coarse pottery. The placingof symbolson a map, by its verynature, begs some questions,and in particular the natureof the evidencefor the occupationof each site. An inscriptionwill indicateactivity at a particularpoint in time but not how long occupationlasted. Only datableartefacts from the fort can do that. Whilethere are few forts which have not been at least trenched,at many the body of dating evidenceis too small for statisticalanalysis. Moreover, many sites were investigated50 or moreyears ago and theirfinds have not, as a body, been re-evaluatedsince throughexamination of the objectsthemselves rather than perusal of the excavationreports. It is a matterof regretthat such an examinationhas not been possiblefor this paper.However, Conventions.On all mapsthe followingconventions are used.A blacksquare indicates occupation at that time.A half-filledsquare suggests that there is some evidencefor occupationat that time, but not sufficientto warrant certainty.Uncertainty is demonstratedby an open square.Forts abandonedsince the date of the previousmap are scoredthrough and theirnames given in smallerletters. However, this procedurehas not beenadopted for uncertain forts as it mightbe felt that this would give a spuriousauthority to the availableinformation. Uncertain forts are simplydropped from the maps when it is thoughtthey were abandoned.All maps are reproducedto the scale of I:2,000,000. Landover 250 m is shaded. ' M. G. Jarrett,Bull. Board. Celtic Stud. xx Pt. 2 (May I963), 206-20. 2 J. L. Daviesin W. S. Hansonand L. J. F. Keppie(eds.), Roman Frontier Studies z979, Papers presented to the z2th International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, BAR Int. Ser. 7I (Oxford,I980), 255-77. 3 D. J. Breezeand B. Dobson, Glasgow Archaeol. Journ. iv (I976), I24-43; W. S. Hansonin W. S. Hansonand L. J. F. Keppie(eds), op. cit (note 2), I5-43. 4 S. S. Frere,Britannia, A History of , (2nd edn. London, I974), figs. 3, 5, 6, 7 and I I . 5 e.g., B. J. N. Edwardsin M. G. Jarrettand B. Dobson (eds.),Britain and Rome, Essays presented to Eric Birley on his sixtieth birthday (Kendal,I966), 95-I05; G. D. B. Jones,Northern Hist. iii (I968), I-26; T. W. Potter,Romans in North-west England (Kendal,I 979), 356-66. 6 e.g., B. Et.Hartley, Northern Hist. i ( I 966), 7-20; B. R. Hartleyin R. M. Butler(ed.), Soldier and civilian in Roman (Leicester, I97I), 55-69; R. F. J. Jones in A. King and M. Henig (eds.), The Roman West in the Third Century, Contributionsfrom Archaeology and History, BAEtInt. Ser. I 09 (Oxford,I 98 I ), 393-4I4. 2 DAVID J. BREEZE AND BRIAN DOBSON we hope that it will serveas an inspirationfor such a project.Only then, and throughfurther excavation,will it perhapsbe possibleto clarifythe detailsleft vague on these maps. The maps follow the usual conventions.We have tried to be consistentin choosing each symbol- occupied, some evidence,uncertain, abandoned-though naturallyan element of subjectivitywill have enteredinto the choice. Sometimesthe best evidencefor the occupation of a site comes fromthe externalcivil settlement.This evidencehas beenused circumspectly as the occupationof the civil settlementmight have continued after the fort had been abandoned. Not all will agreewith each symbolon each distributionmap, but perhapsthis will engender usefuldiscussion of the detailsand, throughthese, the changingpattern of the occupationof northernEngland. Roads have been included on the maps as seems appropriate;fortlets, towersand frontierworks are not discussed. Thewhole of northernEngland was occupiedby two tribes,the Brigantesand the ,the latter being apparentlyrestricted to east Yorkshire.Later, a separatecivitas, that of the ,is recordedin the Eden valley:the earlierhistory of the Carvetiiis unknown.There are hints at divisionswithin the :the Setantii,Gabrantovices and possiblyalso the Textoverdi.Nevertheless these do not affect the general picture painted by Tacitus and Ptolemyof the Brigantesas the most populoustribe in Britain,stretching from sea to sea.7 The Brigantesand their queen Cartimanduafirst enter history in Tacitus'account of the governorshipof OstoriusScapula. Scapula intervened in Brigantiasometime between 47 and 5I, and in 5 I Cartimanduahanded over Caratacusto him. Tacitusa little laterdescribes how herconsort Venutius had long beenloyal to Rome and underits militaryprotection, and notes that he had alreadyreferred to Venutiusearlier, presumably in the lost passageof the Annals dealingwith the period43-47, as being a Brigantian.The implicationis clear:the Brigantes had becomea clientstate of Romein or verysoon after43. Cartimanduain the yearsfollowing 5I quarrelledwith Venutius,and eventuallylost her throneto him in 69, duringthe CivilWar whichfollowed the death of Nero in 68. RomeScompelled already to intervenein Bngantia, moved,following Vespasian's successful bid for the empire,to deal with the now anti-Roman tribe.8Petillius Cerialis,the new governorof Britain(7X-73/4), attacked the Brigantesand duringa seriesof battleshe operated,if not actuallytriumphed, over most of the territoryof the tribe.9His successor,Julius Frontinus (73/4-77/8), conqueredthe Siluresof south Wales, and the next governor,Julius Agricola (77/8-83/4/5), also firstlyoperated in Wales, putting downa revoltof the Ordovicesin northWales. I0 In his thirdseason Agricola marched through the territoryof new tribes,campaigning as far north as the Tay.ll Tacitus,in describingthe intervening(second) season, offers no geographicallocation.l2 It is often assumedthai this yearwas spentin mopping-upoperations in Brigantia.Tacitus' reference to manytribes which had till then maintainedindependence, and the adding of a nova pars (new part) to the provinceSimplies, howeverS activities beyond Brigantia.The most likely setting is southern Scotland.l3The resistanceof the Briganteshad beenbroken by Cerialis,and Frontinushad felt free to turn his attentionto the .

7 Parisi,see Ptolemy,Geography, II, 3, I0, convenientlyaccessible with discussion in A. L. F. Rivetand ColinSmith The Place-Names of Roman Britain (London, I979), I42; Carvetii,JRS lv (I965), 224 (Brougham,milestone dated 26>268), RIB 933 (OldPenrith); Brigantes, Ptolemy, loc. cit., Rivetand Smith,op. cit., I4I-2 and Tacitus,Agricola, I7; Setantii,Ptolemy, op. cit., II, 3, 2, Rivetand Smith,op. cit., I34; Gabrantovices,Ptolemy, op. cit., II, 3, 4, Rivet and Smith,op. cit., I37-8; Textoverdi,RIB I695. 8 Tacitus,Annals XII, 32; 39; Histories, 3, 45; Agricola, I7. 9Tacitus,Agricola, I7. '°Tacitus,Agricola, I7; I8. " Tacitus,Agricola, 22. 2 Tacitus,Agricola, 20. 13A. R. Birleyin B. Levick(ed.), The Ancient Historian and his Materials (Farnborough,I975), I43; B. Dobson, Scot. Arch. Forum Xii (I98I), 6. ROMAN MILITARY DEPLOYMENT IN NORTH ENGLAND 3 It is worth emphasizingthat althoughthe date of the conquestof the Brigantesis knownS the details relatingto the absorptionof this tribe into the empire are not recordedin the literarysources: for such details we have to rely on the imperfecttool of archaeology.The literarysources are exceedinglysparse too on the !ater history of the area. The enigmatic referenceby Juvenalto the stolllling of Brigantianhill-forts and to a Britishking Arviragus, news of whose capture would have pleased Domitian (8I6), and to the Brigantesin Pausanias'Description of Greece are the sole historicalcomments subsequent to the conquest of the tribe and are of no help.l4 In the pre-Flavianperiod (43-68) Roman forts were establishedas far north as Tem- pleboroughin .It is presumedthat this fort did not lie on Brigantianterritory, but may have lain close to the kingdom's southern border. Statius addresseda poem to Crispinusson of Vettius Bolanus, governor of Britain from 69 to 7I, refernng to the constructionof forts and the wrestingof a breastplatefrom a Britishking by his father.ls Bolanushad in all probabilitythe responsibilityof rescuingCartimandua,l6 and the possibility that the forts referredto were in Brigantiacannot be excluded.It may be noted that the Romansregarded client kingdomsas subjectto Rome and did on occasionstation troops in theirterritory.l7 The only sites in northernEngland at presentnormally assigned to the governorshipof Cerialisare those in south-eastYorkshire. Such attributionis not possibleon archaeological evidenceand most argumentsconcerning occupation of these forts tend to the circular.A militarypresence was establishedat York, legion IX Hispanabeing moved here either now or soon after,l8while recent excavationsat Hayton have suggestedcontemporary occupation there, and by extension of other forts in the area.l9Other forts have been suggested as Cerialianfoundations, including bases as far north as Carlisleand Corbridge,20but therecan be no certainty:FIG. I iS, therefore,a minimum,not a maximum,for 75 and as it stands is hardlycredible. It could equallywell reflectan earlystationing of troops in Parisianterritory, perhapsprotection of a friendlytribe.2l FIG. 2 has been the most difficultmap to prepare.Several sites have provided a small quantityof Flavian pottery, but it is difficultto be sure whetherthis reflectscontemporary occupationor the last productsof kilns survivingin use in a later, say Trajanic,fort; the potteryassemblage from most sites will containmaterial whose main circulation was in earlier years.Furthermore, as these forts werelittle more than winterquarters, the rangeof available datingevidence was probablyalways small. In addition,in many excavationreports vessels are frequentlygiven a wide date range, 70 to I25, thus renderingclose definition of the establishmentof the occupationof the fort impossible.On the map, therefore,much use has been made of a half-emptysquare to indicate sites which have produced pre-Hadrianic pottery,but which were not necessarilyoccupied as early as Agricola.

4 Juvenal,Satires XI V, I 96; Pausanius,VIII, 43. 5 Statius,Silvae, 5, 2, I42-9. 6 Tacitus,Histories, 3,45. 7 Res GestaeDivi Augusti27. Tacitus,Annals, I2, 45 recordsa Romangarrison in the client state of Armenia. '8L. P. Wenhamin R. M. Butler(ed.), Soldierand Civilianin RomanYorkshire (Leicester, I97I),45-53. For the possibilityof earlieroccupation see A. R. Birley,Britannia iv (I973), I88 and n. 45. 19S. Johnson,Britannia ix (I978),77-80. 20 Forthe possibilityand referencessee A. R. Birley,op. cit. (note I 8), I 89. The notionof a stormingof Stanwickby Cerialishas recentlybeen challenged: to the doubtsexpressed by B. Dobson, Trans.Architect. Archaeol. Soc. Durham Northumberlandii (I970),39-40, add now P. Turnbull,Durham Archaeol. Journ. i (I984),4I 9; C. C. Haselgroveand P. Turnbull,Stanwick, excavation and fieldwork, interim report z98z-83, OccasionalPaper 4 of the Departmentof Archaeology,Durham University (Durham, I983); A. Chadburn,Northern Archaeology iv pt. I (I983),2-20. 21 S. Johnson,op. cit. (note I9),80. 4 DAVID J. BREEZE AND BRIAN DOBSON

FIG. I. Militarydispositions in northernEngland in 75. Tacitusrecords Agricola building forts in his secondseason.22 This area is usuallyassumed to be northernEngland, but on inadequategrounds. Very many forts in the territoryof the Brigantes are assigned by modern commentatorsto Agricola, but this reflects a long established convention of claiming for Agricola even more than Tacitus does. Precise distinctionbetween the work of Cerialis,Frontinus and Agricolaremains unattainable. FIG. 2, therefore,shows the situationreached by 85. The date is a convenience;it cannot be certain whenthe massiveprocess of shiftingthe winterquarters of the armyof Britaininto Walesand the north from the south was completed The networkof fortswas basedon the two main roadsnorth, with cross-routesbetween the legionaryfortresses at Chesterand York and betweenYork and Ribchester,Catterick and Old Penrith,Corbridge and .

22 Tacitus Agricola 20. . ,::.: . ::, .. .N. . . -.: ,

ROMAN MILITARY DEPLOYMENT IN NORTH ENGLAND s Little can be said about the size of these forts as they are the earlieststructures below a complexof laterforts and are usuallyimperfectly understood. It is, however,noticeable that, whenand whereit is possibleto judge the size of forts, those on the cross-routesthrough the Penninesare generallysmaller than those on the mainroutes north.23 Bowes and GretaBridge (see also FIG. 3) both are a little largerthan normal(4 2 and 4 5 acresrespectively); they lay on the main route from York to Carlisle

g _ , Templeborou

Northwichu: *Chesterfie1d

Fl&.2. Military dispositions in in 85* One finalproblem in connectionwith this map is the existenceof severalundated forts. All theseforts, most of whichare relatively new discoveries,were probably built of turfand timber and it thereforeseems likely that they date to the late first century,or, less likely, the early second.They fit most happilyinto this period,when the situationis fluidand forts, little more than winterquarters, were built and abandonedmore frequentlythan in later years.

23 M. J. Jones, Romanfort defencesto A.D. zz7J BAR 2I (Oxford, I975), I26. 6 DAVID J. BREEZE AND BRIAN DOBSON

FIG. 3. Militarydispositions in northernEngland in 95.

Sometimes,using meagre dating evidence, the occupationof adjacentforts can be arranged in chronologicalsequence. At the south-easternend of the Stainmoreroad lie Catterick, Carkin Moor, Greta Bridge and Bowes, while the proximityof Piercebridgemay also be noted, though in spite of finds of early pottery here, the existenceof an early fort is still unproven.24It is doubtfulif all were occupiedat once. Greta Bridgedoes not appearto have been establisheduntil the turn of the century25and it seems possible that undated Carkin Moor may have been its predecessor.A problemof a differentnature lies on the road north fromYork. Thereis an undatedfort at HealamBridge and thereought to be an earlyfort at Aldborough,the later urbancentre of the Brigantes,to breakan otherwiselong gap.26 West of the Pennines,early industrial complexes are known at Wilderspoolon the Mersey

'4 We are grateful to Mr Peter Scott for advice on Piercebridge. 25 B. R. Hartley, op. cit. (note 6, Soldierand civilian),58. 26 B. R. Hartley, ibid. ROMAN MILITARY DEPLOYMENT IN NORTH ENGLAND 7 and Walton-le-daleon the Ribble.27It mightbe suspectedthat thesesites would have military connections,but their preciserelationship to the army has not yet been determined.

FIG. 4. Military dispositions in northern England in I IO.

Towardsthe end of the first century there appear to have been some alterationsto the network of the forts. Castleshawin the south Pennines was abandoned, to be replaced, probablyin the earlysecond century,by a fortlet, while Hayton was abandoned,perhaps in the mid 80s?as wereprobably other forts in the area.28In probablythe last decadeof the first century new forts were built in and around the Lake District at Watercrook,Ambleside, Caermote(if not before)and possiblyTroutbeck.29 Lease Rigg and Cawthornand the roadon

7Wilderspool:Britannia vi (I975), 240. Walton-le-dale:Britannia Xiii (I982), 352; XiV (I983)s 296-7. '8Castleshaw: F. H. Thompson,Trans. Lancs. and Cheshire Antiq. Soc. lXXVii (I967), 3. Hayton:S. Johnson,op. cit. (note I9). 99 B. R. Hartley,op. cit. (note 6, NorthernHist.), I2; T. W. Potter,op. cit. (note 5) 356. 8 DAVID J. BREEZE AND BRIAN DOBSON which they lay, also probablydate to this time, though in both cases the dating evidenceis slight.30 The last yearsof the firstcentury and the earlyyears of the secondsaw an abandonmentof forts north of the Tyne-Solwayisthmus. This process possibly took as long as 20 years to completeand may have takenplace in as many as four stages.3'Some of the units withdrawn from these northernforts may have been transferredout of the province:legion II Adiutrix certainlywas, and it was probablyaccompanied by some auxiliaryunits.32 The move of the legionwas presumablylinked with the Dacian Warof Domitian(86-88). The Dacian warsof Trajan(IOI-I02 and I05-I06) may have led to the transferof furtherunits from Britain.How manyauxiliary regiments, if any, left the provinceis not known.The occupationof new forts in northernEngland at this timemay havebeen connected with the withdrawalfrom Scotland. The Lake District, while presumablysubdued and broughtwithin the provinceduring the Flavianadvance, had not been occupiedby forts. It may not be coincidentalthat forts were builtthere at about the tireethat the more northerlycommitments were abandoned. Possibly these forts were built to help accommodatethe units which had formerlybeen stationedin Scotlandbut which had not been transferredto the continent. In the early second centurythere seems to have been an increasein the numberof forts acrossthe Tyne-Solwayisthmus.33 Forts had lain along the Stanegatebetween Corbridge and Carlisleat Chesterholmand probablyat Nether Denton from the Flavianperiod. These lay about I4 milesapart. In the middle,Carvoran, at the end of the MaidenWay, has produceda Domitianic corn-measure-but this clearly remainedin use after 96 and is thereforenot necessarily evidence for Flavian occupation- and a possible Flavian tombstone.34 Unpublishedaerial photographs apparently suggest the existenceof a fort below that built in I36/7. We are on rather stronger ground with Old Church, Brampton,between Nether Denton and Carlisle,which seemsto have been built in the earlysecond century.35 It has also been suggestedthat the gap betweenCorbridge and Chesterholmwas broken,but to date no fort of the rightdate has been identified,Newbrough producing only fourth-centurypottery.36 To the east of Corbridge,Washing Well, Whickham,unexcavated but of at least two periods accordingto aerialphotographs, probably existed at this time.37The evidencefor a systemof forts forminga 'Stanegatefrontier' and datingto the reignof Trajanis meagre.However, the existenceof two small forts at HaltwhistleBurn and Throp, built on this line in the early second century, points to increasing emphasis on the Tyne-Solway isthmus: the other postulatedfortlets in this 'system'remain unproven.38 The establishmentof thesenew military installationsis generallyconsidered to followthe abandonmentof the last forts to be held northof the Tyne-Solwayisthmus, probably about I05, thoughthe date is far from certain.39 A growingbody of evidencedemonstrates that the developmentof frontierinstallations was more complex than earlierbelieved. The recentlydiscovered fort at Burgh-by-SandsSouth,

30B. R. Hartleyin D. A. Spratt,Prehistoric and RomanArchaeology of North-EastYorkshire, BAR I04 (Oxford, I 982), 2 I I-2. 31D. J. Breeze,The Northern Frontiers of RomanBritain (London, Ig82), 60 72. 32E. Birley,Roman Britain and the RomanArmy (Kendal, I953), 2I. 33E. Birley, Researchon Hadrian'sWall (Kendal, I96I), I32-50; D. J. Breezeand B. Dobson, Hadrian'sWall (Harmondsworth,I978), 20-7; C. Daniels,Scot. Arch.Forum, Glasgow 1970 (Ig70), 94-5. 34RIB I826. E. Birley,op. cit. (note 33), I94. 3s F. G. Simpsonand I. A. Richmond,Trans. Cumb. West. Ant. Arch.Soc. xxxvi (X936),I76-7. 36E. Birley,op. cit. (note 33), I48. 37N. McCordand G. Jobey,Arch. Ael.4 xlix ( I 97I ), I 20. 38E. Birley,op. cit. (note 33), I35, I43-6. Also on the Stanegate:C. M. Daniels(ed.), Handbook to the RomanWall (Newcastleupon Tyne, I 3th edition, I 978),passim, but particularlyI 76-8 and 206-I I . 39J. P. Gillam,Arch. Ael.5 v (X977),56 and 60. J; RibchesterEX : 1slack- ,:.'. H.\ ig ...... : t3$ ,11e .. - :: ley' I ( , jE

ROMAN MILITARY DEPLOYMENT IN NORTH ENGLAND 9 betweenCarlisle and Kirkbrideand immediatelysouth of the Hadrian'sWall fort of Burgh- by-Sands,seems to date to the later years of Trajanor the early years of Hadrian.40 The abandonmentof forts in south Yorkshire,already noted on FIG. 3, continues with Newton Kymeand Castleford,both consideredto have been abandonedbefore the end of the firstcentury.4'

.. : \ : --:.--.:;*SIack 9

* \ ''-i "< Ab- Manchester 4=< ' ' ' / \ t_ -Templet

35g/ gs-t,Brough-on - Noe

\ .XX , . . - 4o C he s t e r t ie id

FIG. 5. Militarydispositions in northernEngland in I30.

The Tyne-Solwayisthmus was the line chosenin the I20S for Hadrian'sWall. The firstplan for the Wall appearsto havecalled for the constructionof new forts acrossthe isthmuson the Stanegateline in addition to the barrieritself,.which was devoid of forts at this time. Both

4() G. D. B. Jones,Britannia Xiii (I982), 285. ProfessorJones has kindlyinformed the firstauthor that he no longer believesthat the site at Finglandriggis a Romanfort. 41 H. Rammin K. Branigan(ed.), Rome and the Brigantes (Sheffield,I980), 33;A. Sumpterin P. R. Wilson,R. F. J. Jonesand D. M. Evans(eds.), Settlement and Society in the Roman North (Bradfordand Leeds, I984), 84. DAVID J. BREEZE AND BRIAN Corbridgeand DOBSON beenIO in Chesterholm42seem to have been occupation. rebuiltand to the east may be Matchingwork at Nether Whickhammay have revealedby future Denton and Carlislemight constructedas excavation.43Further west be expected,and part of this plan. Burgh-by-SandsSouth may In the second plan have been for Hadrian's Wall abandonedand replaced most of these forts close by new forts on the line across the isthmus to the positions of of the Wallitself: many were builton their immediate of thesenew forts lay the Cumbriancoast predecessors.In addition, two The and threeoutposts were or three forts were establishmentof the Hadrianic establishednorth of the acrossthe isthmus frontiercomplex led to Wall.44 and down the west the constructionof 2 I drawnfrom the forts coast. Some of the units new forts alreadyin existenceon to garrisonthese sites required.These were the isthmus,but perhaps were I fortsare transferredto the Wall from I4 additionalunits were thoughtto have been northernEngland and from samenumber in abandonedin northern Wales.At least Wales,moref than enough Englandin theseyears and aSectedwere east for the new forts on the about the coast Yorkshirewhere the forts on frontier.45The areas were abandonednow if the road leadingnorth chiefly thosein the not earlier,those on from Malton to the centraland southern Dere Streetleading north beenlinked to Pennines.The from York and the withdrawalfrom establishmentof the civitas An interesting many of these Yorkshire Brigantium has discrepancybetween the forts.46 evidencecan be detectedat documentarysources of57 or this time.Nine diplomas, and the archaeological 58 auxiliaryregiments datingfrom 98 to I46, fournames in Britain,while providethe names and two more within inscriptionsof the same numberof the following20 years, periodadd a further forts in Englandand a total of 63 or 64.47 occupiedin the Wales consideredon However,the Hadrianicperiod is only 55. archaeologicalgrounds to have squareson FIG. 5. It seems possible that been The there should be more new frontierpolicy of England(and AntoninusPius led to the Wales), in order to abandonmentof many forts Scotland.48Many, provide- the 3 I estimated in north perhapsmost, of the Wall units required to continuedto be occupiedfor forts were abandoned- garrison forts they could operateas though some furthersouth. forts distinctfrom the certainly a ofline Abandonmentof the Wall forts Wall- and about I 8 communication,with led to renewedinterest time.49On some forts continuing in the Stanegateas Dere StreetEbchester in occupationor being butelsewhere and Binchesterwere reoccupiedat this thereis no evidenceto replacedby a new fort at constructionof new suggestemulation of this Lanchester,5° forts. It is interestingto attemptto providecover Boweson the Stainmore note the forts which by the and Road, Ribchesteron continuedin possiblyLancaster on the westernroute, and occupation: the coast. In view of the Maryport,Ravenglass continuingoccupation of 42 J. Ribchesterat an p.Gillam, op. cit. (note 43a Forreport on 39),53-4; R. Birley,Vindolanda the latestwork on (London, I97j), withmodifications to the Carlisle,indicating military I08-9. cit.(note buildings,see M. R. occupationcontinuing through 4I),65-70. McCarthy,in P. R. Wilson,R. the secondcentury 44J.Breeze D. F. J. Jonesand D. M. and B. Dobson, op. cit. Evans(eds), op. 45R.Hartley, B. op. (note 33),43-5I- 46 cit. (note 6, Northern R.Hartley, B. op. cit. IIist.), fig. I; J. L. 47J. D. (note 6, NorthernIIist.), Davies,op. cit. (note Breezein R. Miket and C. I7. 2),264-70. HistoryofNorth Burgess(eds.), Between Britainin IIonourof George and Beyondthe Walls, 48R.Hartley, B. Jobey(Edinburgh, Essays on the Prehistory 49 Britanniaiii (I974),25; J. I984),264-6. and ChestersThe diploma L. Davies, op. cit. (note this of I46 mayindicate the 2),269-7I. havingforta role related presenceof a unitin the 5" B. to the Stanegatebefore fortat thattime, Dobson,Trans. Architect. Hadrian'sWall was recallingthe possibilityof Reed,Arch. Archaeol.Soc. built:cf. E. Birley,op. Ael.5iii (I975),56 Durham cit. (note 33), I73. and 64. Hartley Northumberlandii (I970), 34; V. evacuatedunderHadrian. op. cit. (note 6, A. Maxfieldand A. NorthernHist.), 8 and I6, H. suggeststhat Binchesterwas ROMAN MILITARY DEPLOYMENT IN NORTH ENGLAND I I

FIG. 6. Military dispositions in northern England in 50. important road junction, a fort at Brougham may be postulated. Continuing occupation has also been claimed for Ambleside and Templeborough.5l The abandonment of Antonine Scotland in the I60S brought back many regiments south of Hadrian's Wall, not as many as the 3 I or so units which moved into Scotland, as more outpost forts in advance of Hadrian's Wall were held now than previously.52These units were spread as far south as Little Chester in Derbyshire and some sites in Wales may also have been re-

5} Ambleside:the recentlydiscovered Antonine samian is fromthe civil settlementand thus may not be relevantto the owupationof the fort:Mary E. Burkett,Trans. Cumb. West. Ant. Areh. Soe. lxv (\X965),93-7; Trans. Cumb. West. Ant. Arch. Soc. lxxvii (I977), I79-80. This is implicitlyaccepted by Hartley,op. cit. (note 48). Templeborough:T. May, The Roman Forts of Templeboroughnear Rotherham (Rotherham,I922), I I . 52The authorshave alreadyexpressed their reservationsabout the authenticityof the sBrigantianRevolt': D. J. Breezeand B. Dobson, op. cit. (note 33), I05-8. However,whether this 'event'happened or not, it has no relevance for thesemaps as whateverchanges occurred in the I 50S weresubsumed in the greatertroop movennlents of the I60S. 9e ee * t -; -e j

I2 DAVID J. BREEZE AND BRIAN DOBSON occupiedat this time.53Brough-on-Noe was occupiednow for the first time in 40 years and there were other forts in this category: Manchester,Ilkley, Elslack and Bainbridge.s4In addition,one new fort was builtat Chester-le-Street,and probablyanother at Newcastleupon Tyne.55In some cases the rebuildingwas extensive,the work at Manchester,for example, apparentlyinvolving the constructionof a completelynew fort.56It has been pointedout that the re-occupationof all these sites reflectsnot so much a troubledsituation in the Pennines, but the need to place perhapsas many as 28 units somewhere.57Wherever possible the units

FIG. 7. Militarydispositions in northernEngland in I70.

53 LittleChester (off the bottomof this map):Britannia iv (I973), 285; Xii (I98I), 335. Wales:J. L. Davies,op. cit. (note 2), 269. 54J. P. Gillam, Trans.Architect. Archaeol. Soc. DurhamNorthumberland, pt. 4 (I953), 262-3. 55J.P. Gillam and J. Tait, Arch. Ael.4xlvi (I968), 85. C. M. Daniels and BarbaraHarbottle, Arch. Ael.s viii (1980),65. 56 S Bryant,Roman Manchester (Manchester, I982), I5. 57 B. Dobson, op. cit. (note 50), 34. ROMAN MILITARY DEPLOYMENT IN NORTH ENGLAND I3 seemto have been placedclose to Hadrian'sWall, and it is interestingto note that Lanchester, formerlybuilt to replaceEbchester and Binchester,continued in occupation.58It has been suggestedthat the forts in the southernPennines may have been maintainedto police the miningareas; this explanationalso may account for the proposedcontinuing occupation of Templeboroughin the early Antonineperiod.59 The problems of the army in finding new homes for all these units may have been exacerbatedby the fact that not all the forts abandoned20 or 40 years beforewill still have been available.Thus Aldboroughwill presumablyhave been given over to civil use by now. Accordinglymore forts were occupied in the southern Pennines, presumablybeyond the territoryof the civitas Brigantium, than in the Hadrianicperiod. Neither Corbridgenor Carlislewere re-occupied as normalforts, thoughmilitary activity of a diSerentnature seems to have continuedat both sites.60 It is perhapsa moot point how far all these units were requiredfor the defence of the northernfrontier and how much militaryinertia governed their continuingpresence in the island. Certainlythe northernfrontier remained unstable into the early third century.In or soon after I 75 a forceof 5ff500Sarmatians, tribute from beyondthe Danubefrontier, was sent to Britain.61It is not known whetherthese troops were genuinelyall requiredin Britain,or weremerely sent to a convenientlyisolated part of the empire.Nor is it known where they werestationed; the ala Sarmatarumat Ribchestermay have beenformed from this force,but it may have come to the island at a diSerenttime. Inscriptionscarry the occupationof many sites into the thirdcentury. However, during the 50 yearsfrom I 70 to 220 therewere some changes. Hardknott on the road betweenAmbleside and Ravenglasswas abandoned,probably in the late secondcentury.62 This fort had perhaps only been occupiedin the hope of providinga convenientstaging-post and could now be seen as an additional,unnecessary encumbrance. Nearby Watercrook,and also Templeborough, may have been abandonedin the early thirdcentury.63 Themajor change in the dispositionof troopsin northernEngland occurred in the late third century.Professor J. C. Mann, arguingfrom the presenceof new style armyunits in many of the Pennineforts in the Notitia Dignitatum list, suggestedthat these replacedgarrisons either withdrawnor disbandedin the more peacefulyears of the late thirdcentury: some units were certainly transferredto the Saxon Shore forts.64FIG. 9 reflects this suggestion, with the abandonedforts those containingnew style units in the Notitia. It is interestingto see that the forts retainedwere those on the two main roads to the north;Ilkley on the road west from York; severalforts on the Cumbriancoast; and Brough-on-Noe. The contractionin the size of the provincialarmy seems to have extendedto Hadrian's Wall, whereit is possiblethat severalforts had their garrisonsreduced in strengthin the late thirdand earlyfourth centuries. There are a numberof categorieshere. Some forts show signs archaeologicallyof abandonmentoHalton Chestersand Rudchester,though the formerstill has its third-centurygarrison in the Notitia list, the latter's third-centurygarrison being unknown.65South Shieldsalso seemsto have been abandoned,but therewas a new unit there

5X ibid.

59 Mining:G. Simpson,Britons ancl the RomanArmy (Farnborough, I964), I39. Templeborough:T. May, op. cit. (note 5 I ), I I . 60 M. R. McCarthy,op. cit. (note 43), 68; E. Birleyand I. A. Richmond,Arch. Ael.4 xv (I938), 26>4.

6?T. W. Potter,op. cit. (note 5), 363. 63 Watercrook:loc. cit. I79; Templeborough:T. May, op. cit. (note SI), I I . 64J, C, Mann,Glusgow Arch. Journ. iii (I974), 38. M. Hassallin D. E. Johnston(ed.) TheSaxon Shore(Londons I977), 8-9. 65J, p, Gillam,Arch. Ael.5 ii (I974), I2-5; D. J. Breezeand B. Dobson, op. cit. (note 33), 243 for the garrison. I4 DAVID J. BREEZE AND BRIAN DOBSON

FIG. 8. Military dispositions in northern England in 220. in the Notitia.66It has been suggestedthat occupationlapsed over part of the interior of Bowness-on-Solwayin the third century.67Certain buildings in Birdoswaldare attested epigraphicallyas havingfallen into decayin the thirdcentury, but apparentlybeing restored in the early fourth, with the fort's third-centurygarrison still presentin the Notitia list.68One interpretationof the 'chalet'accommodation, which replaced the normal'L-shaped' barrack- blocksat severalforts in and aroundHadrian's Wall in the late thirdor earlyfourth century, is that armyunits had been reducedin size, each chalet now being occupiedby one soldierand his familyin contrastto the earlierbarrack-room which had probablybeen occupiedby eight

66J.N. Dore and J. P. Gillam, TheRoman Fort at SouthShields (Newcastle upon Tyne, I979), 68-70. 67T. W. Potter,op. cit. (note 5), 363. 68RIB I9I2. J. J. Wilkesin M. G. Jarrettand B. Dobson (eds.),op. cit. (note 5), 2I5; D. J. Breezeand B. Dobson, op. cit. (note 33), 245 for the garrison. ROMAN MILITARY DEPLOYMENT IN NORTH ENGLAND I5 soldiers.69Whatever the correctnessof this interpretation,Duncan Jones has recentlyargued that the fourth-centuryunits were markedlysmaller than their first- and second-century predecessors.70It may be that all the evidencefrom the Wall representsa single process of dwindlingnumbers in the third centuryand re-organizationwith a smallerbasic unit size in the fourth,supporting Duncan Jones' contention.

FIG. 9. Militarydispositions in northernEngland in 280. It has been suggestedthat the late third century, when many forts were abandonedin northernEngland, would have been the most appropriatetime for the establishmentof the civitas Carvetiorum in the Eden valley.7l

69J.J. Wilkes,ibid. I30; C. M. Danielsin W. S. Hansonand L. J. F. Keppie(eds.), op. cit. (note 2), I73-93. 70 R. P. IE)uncanJones, Chironviii (I978), 54I-60. See also: A. R. Birleyin A. King and M. Henig (eds.), op. cit. (note 6), 39-44; D. J. Breezein R. Miket and C. Burgess(eds.), op. cit. (note 47), 264-8. 71J. C. Mann in P. J. Casey, TheEnd of RomanBritain, BAR 7I (Oxford,I979), I46. DAVID J. BREEZE AND BRIAN DOBSON We have not attemptedto producea map for the go years from 280 to 370. This reflects uncertaintyabout the militaryposition duringthese years, and, in particular,the date when the new style units were sent to their new stationsin northernEngland.

FIG. I0. Militarydispositions in northernEngland in 370. FIG. IO illustratesthe pattern immediatelyafter the barbarianconspiracy of 367. Forts markedas filled squareshave producedmaterial, in nearlyevery case pottery, dating to the last third of the fourthcentury. Thedate of the abandonmentof the outpostforts has long beenlinked to the eventsof 342/3 and the 360s.However, it has recentlybeen proposedthat theirabandonment occurred earlier than hithertosupposed, possibly at the time of ConstantineI's visit to Britainin 3 I4.72On the other hand, later in the fourth centurythere was a strengtheningof the army in northern England,as reflectedin the Notitia Dignitatum,in response to the growing threat to the

72 p. J. Caseyand M. Savage,Arch. Aels viii (I980), 79-80. ROMAN MILITARY DEPLOYMENT IN NORTH ENGLAND l7

- - C ) * CBs-vse@wB*ss-X *-S-s l FIG. I I. Militarydispositions in northernEngland according to the Notitia Dignitatum. diocese.73That documentcontains 37 unitsin northBritain, including the legion at York, 38 if the proposedemendation of the Wall list is accepted.74Here a discrepancyarises between the archaeologicaland the documentaryevidence. There is archaeologicalevidence for fourth- centuryoccupation at certainforts not apparentlylisted in the Notitia.It mightbe that this is occupationof a civil ratherthan a militarynature, or that some forts were abandonedbefore the NotitiaDignitatum was drawnup, or that some forts wereomitted from the Notitialist by chanceor mistake.Again, the basic differencesbetween the archaeologicaland the documen- tarysources are clear.The NotitiaDignitatum reflects a situationat a particularpoint in time; archaeologicalevidence reflects the presenceof pottery of the period, not that the fort was occupied at a particulardate. For this reason the evidence adduced from the Notitia is presentedon a separatemap (FIG. I I).

73 Notitia Dignitatum, Occ., 40. 74 D. J. Breezeand B. Dobson, op. cit. (note 33), 274-5; A. L. F. Rivet and Colin Smith,op. cit. (note 7), 220 I. DAVID J. BREEZE AND BRIAN DOBSON The new threats to Rome are clearly reflectedin the new frontier dispositions. Some rebuildingwas undertakenin the forts of Hadrian'sWall; the defencesof the west coast were strengthened;a series of watch-towerswas erected down the Yorkshire coast.75As yet, however,there is no clear evidencehow these towers relatedto the fort network.The units behindthese front lines presumablyacted as supportfor the frontierregiments, in the same way as theirpredecessors over 300 yearsbefore. It seemslikely that these changestook place over a period of years,not as the resultof a single decision. FIG. I I portraysonly informatlonrecorded in the NotitiaDignitatum.76 In that way it differs from earliermaps in that no attempthas been made to indicatesites which might have been abandonedbetween 370 and 400. One majorproblem with this armylist is that it is still not possibleto identifymany of the forts recordedas lying in the commandof the Duke of the Britains.Thus six forts ought to be addedto the map, whileboth Malton and Old Carlisleare includedas doubtfulas it is not known which is the Derventioof the Notitia;indeed the site may be Little Chester,also namedDerventio, though recentexcavations have suggestedthat the fort was abandonedbefore the end of the fourthcentury.77 However, there are nine more forts, plus one possiblesite, on FIG. IO than FIG. I I, possiblyindicating that some sites were abandonedin the late fourthcentury.

CONCLUSIONS The networkof forts in northernEngland was clearlybased on the two main roads north. Theseroads providedspeedy communication between the units stationedthere and the main areaof activity,the northernfrontier. This is emphasizedby FIG. 7. After the abandonmentof Scotlandin the I 60s manyregiments had to be foundnew homesand, as therewas insufficient spaceon Hadrian'sWall, units were distributedalong the lines of communication. Certain cross-routeswere also regardedas most important. FIG. 6 demonstratesthis. Ribchesterremains in occupation,presumably because of its position at a road junction. Bowes,at the east end of Stainmore,is also retainedand continuingoccupation at Brougham mightbe expected.The late third-centurypattern is slightlydifferent, with forts retainedclose behindthe frontiereast of the Penninesbut abandonedin comparablepositions to the west, possiblya resultof the establishmentof the civitasCarvetiorum. A further factor in the positioning of forts is the proximityof good agriculturalland, necessaryfor the easy supply of the unit. Dr Higham has drawn attention to the close relationshipbetween many forts and such land.78This factor would help account for the re- establishmentof forts well south of Hadrian'sWall in the secondhalf of the second century. The spreadof forts across the face of northernEngland reflects the geographyof the area and the distributionof good agriculturalland. The shape of Britain meant that the large militaryforce assembled for conquestand retainedfor the securityof the frontiercould not all be deployedalong its 73-milelength 79 The patternof forts iIl northernEngland reflects thiss

75 [). J. Breeze and B. Dobson, op. cit. (note 33), 22I-7; S. Johnson, The Roman Forts of the Saxon Shore (London, I976), I334, I49. P. J. Casey (ed.), The End o+Roman Britain, BAR 7I (Oxford, I979), 754, suggests that 'the Yorkshire coast signal stations could have been built by Maximus rather than Count Theodosius.' 76We accept a date of about 400 for the Notitia Dignitatum:J. C. Mann in R. Goodburn and P. Bartholomew (eds.) Aspects of the Notitia Dignitatum, BAR Suppl. Ser. I 5 (Oxford, I 976), 8; A. L. F. Rivet and Colin Smith, op. cit. (note 7), 2IS25. 77 Britannia Xii ( I 98 I ), 33 5. 78 N. J. Higham in P. Clack and S. Haselgrove (eds.), Rural Settlement in the Roman North (Durham, I982), I08. 79 Professor Mann sees the defence of the province falling into a series of layers - a zone of surveillance, the outpost forts, the Wall, the units in the hinterland forts and finally the legion at York: J. C. Mann in P. J. Casey (ed.), op. cit. (note 75), I45 fi. ROMAN MILITARY DEPLOYMENT IN NORTH ENGLAND I9 and is no 'defencein depth?,80still less a responseto the intransigenceof the local inhabitants.8' They give no hint at trouble after their conquest by Cerealis,and would appear to have succumbedto the 'seductivevices' of Rome.82

HistoricBuildings and Monuments,3-11, MelvilleStreet, Edinburgh(DJB) Departmentof Adultand ContinuingEducation Studies, Durham (BD)

80 Pace G. D. B. Jones, sConceptand Developmentin Roman Frontiers',Bulletin of the JohnRylands University Libraryof Manchester6I, I (AutumnI978), I38-42, followingE. N. Luttwak,The GrandStrategy of the Roman EmpireFrom the First CenturyA.D. to the Third(Baltimore and London I976), I30 90. 81 Pace A. L. F. Rivet in A. L. F. Rivet (ed.), TheRoman Villa in Britain(London, I969), I92. 82 H. Mattingly,Tacitus on Britainand Germany(Harmondsworth, I948), 67.